leading or critical role for organizations with distinguished reputation
证据为何得到认可
AAO disagreed with the Director in part: while the Florida non-profit lacked a distinguished reputation, the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence of the distinguished reputation of the other organization, and reference letters established that his senior roles were critical to the organization's activities in several targeted regions.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO disagreed with the Director in part: while the Florida non-profit lacked a distinguished reputation, the Petitioner submitted sufficient evidence of the distinguished reputation of the other organization, and reference letters established that his senior roles were critical to the organization's activities in several targeted regions.
The reference letters discuss the impact on individuals who received humanitarian assistance, not on the broader field. Counsel's unsupported assertion that the Petitioner established rules and procedures adopted by others was not corroborated by independent evidence, and assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence.
为什么值得参考
区分“工作具有原创性”与“原创贡献对整个领域具有重大意义”的证明。
查看完整裁决理由 +
The reference letters discuss the impact on individuals who received humanitarian assistance, not on the broader field. Counsel's unsupported assertion that the Petitioner established rules and procedures adopted by others was not corroborated by independent evidence, and assertions of counsel do not constitute evidence.
AAO reserved the formal final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the threshold requirement of three qualifying criteria. In dicta, AAO noted the record fails to show sustained acclaim as a journalist.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO reserved the formal final merits determination because the Petitioner did not meet the threshold requirement of three qualifying criteria. In dicta, AAO noted the record fails to show sustained acclaim as a journalist.
AAO stated no formal final merits determination was needed because the Petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria at step 1, but noted in dicta that the record does not support the required sustained acclaim.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO stated no formal final merits determination was needed because the Petitioner failed to meet at least three criteria at step 1, but noted in dicta that the record does not support the required sustained acclaim.
AAO found that the proposed physical therapy business did not demonstrate national importance under Dhanasar. The shortage of physical therapists does not render the endeavor nationally important; that is addressed by the labor certification process.…
为什么值得参考
对照裁决如何区分“领域整体重要”与“申请人具体工作将产生的未来影响”。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO found that the proposed physical therapy business did not demonstrate national importance under Dhanasar. The shortage of physical therapists does not render the endeavor nationally important; that is addressed by the labor certification process. The business plan's projected employment and tax figures did not rise to the level of substantial positive economic effects, and the endeavor was not shown to have broader implications beyond its local clients and employees.
high salary or remuneration demonstrating exceptional ability
AAO 为什么未被说服
AAO found that the salary evidence reflects the organization's standardized pay scale tied to grade and time-in-service, not the Petitioner's individual exceptional ability. Comparison to U.S. household income generally is an improper benchmark; the comparison must be to others working in the field.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO found that the salary evidence reflects the organization's standardized pay scale tied to grade and time-in-service, not the Petitioner's individual exceptional ability. Comparison to U.S. household income generally is an improper benchmark; the comparison must be to others working in the field.
AAO found the credential evaluation did not establish educational qualifications alone under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A), and the employer letter failed to demonstrate that the Petitioner's experience was progressive as required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). Therefore the Petitioner had not established eligibility as an advanced degree professional.
为什么值得参考
利用裁决理由识别 AAO 认为重要的具体事实或文件缺口。
查看完整裁决理由 +
AAO found the credential evaluation did not establish educational qualifications alone under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(A), and the employer letter failed to demonstrate that the Petitioner's experience was progressive as required under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(i)(B). Therefore the Petitioner had not established eligibility as an advanced degree professional.